SkyDekker

Then why didn't businesses put an end to segregation themselves? History doesn't appear to be on your side.

So should there then be a list of which business can discriminate and whch ones cannot? Or is it at a certain level of profit? How do you want to make the distinction? Yes. Any business that does business with any level of government can't discriminate in any way. Discrimination also discludes the business from any aid or tax breaks. But any other company can discriminate at will?

I am not. Just asking a question. That's why I suggested comparing cities of similar size (and population desnity, though Toronto is significantly more densly populated than LA for instance) But, guess you would prefer to cherry pick to make things work for you.

A measure we use in crystallography to determine "clumpiness" of crystal orientations is the (normalized) standard deviation from uniformity. (I take credit for introducing this in 1970) Similar idea. With population density in a country I would be interested to see all the bins though. How does the low population density in the Northwest Territories affect the crime rate in densly populated Toronto? Specially when comparing it to other extremely large cities. Toronto is the 5th largest metropolitan area in North America. Crime rate comparisons with other large cities would be valid.

So should there then be a list of which business can discriminate and whch ones cannot? Or is it at a certain level of profit? How do you want to make the distinction?

Not always easy to just start a competing business. What if a pharmaceutical company decides they don't want to supply drugs to gays, or christians, or muslims, or black people etc.? What if the NYSE decides that black people are not allowed to trade on their platform?

Maybe, but when you look at a ratio per 100, you find out that isn't the case. What might be interesting to look at (and I very briefly googled but came up short) would be a comparison of population vs. population density for different countries. (i.e. percentage of people in the country that live in an area with population density of 500-999 ppl/sq km, 1000-1499 ppl/sq km, etc.) Obviously it's going to be positively correlated, but it would give you an idea as to the degree of "clumping" that was going on. You could. Look at Toronto and compare with New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit.

When I was in school just about all of my professors were extremely well recognized in the professional and scientific community. Many were active directors at commercial firms. Surely you have a real explanation? Right, recognized and perhaps on the BoD but none were CEO's nor ran their own business. Reminds me of the guy who was always the "assistant" Manager but never the Manager. Is that based on any kind of actual experience or research? Being CEO has nothing to do with your original point. The population of CEOs of large businesses (when compared to the conservative US population) is statistically insignificant to explain why liberals dominate the academic world. There's still the other 99.9% of the general US conservative population who is doing other normal shit. The question is why aren't they teaching? Care to try again? As much as I like to harp on teachers. I do think that many start with the ideal of helping to educate children and help educate the next generation. Trying to help society is certainly a more liberal mindset. Conservatives tend to think more along the lines of, if I help myself society will take care of itself. I don't think it is a grand surprise that many teachers are of a more liberal mindset. Makes sense to me. However, policy is set by the school boards, run by elected trustees. Hence, in stead of complaining about liberal dominance in schools, why not elect a conservative trsutee, or is there is none, run as a trustee and get yourself elected. (Would also not surprise me if many who complain don't even show up for these elections)

*** support anyone doing what they want so long as they aren't hurting or will not likely hurt someone else by doing it. These two statements contradict eachother somewhat. Unless you purely mean based on the political spectrum. Conservatives or liberals not welcome here kind of thing. When you tell somebody they are too gay to get a cup of coffee in their cafe. Or, I will only serve you if you sit at this indentified counter, means you are hurting someone. Not exactly. I come at it from the persepctive that the business owner is not obligated to do something. To say they are obligated makes them a form of slave. Refusing to do something for someone else does not harm them as you suggest. They can go somewhere else to get a cup of coffee. Since it deprives the business owner of revenue, it would be more accurate to say that the business owner hurt himself/herself. I support their right to shoot themselves in the foot. That only works if all groups have similar buying power, and there is no large size differential between the groups. I agree with the theory of the thought, the problem is that in practice it rarely works that way. If it did, the free market would have put an end to segregation.

Maybe, but when you look at a ratio per 100, you find out that isn't the case. Sorry my friend, we are just too polite to be violent

Indeed. Who here knows that the EPA conducts SWAT-style raids to conduct paperwork inspections? Sounds ludicrous, but it happens. Or that organic farms and raw milk producers are regularly the subject of such raids? Or raiding Gibson Guitars because there was a rumor that banned ebony was being used? Or being used to break up charity poker games to benefit a food bank? Feds. All we should have, is the FBI at that level with "Police Authority". Matt It has always amazed me how many different law enforcement agencies the US has at all different levels.

I did address the point, but like the typical skygod you didn't like the answer and rejected it. Here, I'll tell you what you want to hear: You are special and all your friends are special. They are not subject to what general statistics show. I am not trying to deminish that you have thought about this and have deemed that the risks are acceptable to you and your family. Good for you. However, like the kid downsizing way to quickly, you dismiss the statistics by saying: this cannot happen to me and my family members.

These two statements contradict eachother somewhat. Unless you purely mean based on the political spectrum. Conservatives or liberals not welcome here kind of thing. When you tell somebody they are too gay to get a cup of coffee in their cafe. Or, I will only serve you if you sit at this indentified counter, means you are hurting someone.

No country is in a good moral position for casting stones. Most people who have done some living are not in a good moral position to cast stones. That doesn't mean that you don't speak up when something happens you do not agree with. With an occurance of this magnitude, silence would be the same as consent. I am sure Obama understands that Putin isn't going to listen, however something had to be said. In the mean time, the threat of sanctions, combined with the possible cost of war caused the Ruble to tank. This caused the Russian Central Bank to take $10 billion out of their foreign reserves to stop the nose dive. It also forced them to dramatically increase their interest rates to stave of inflation. Today Putin has announced the end of the war games on the border. Maybe just all a coincidence.

No criminals are not exempt. Very few people are exempt. However, like any law ever made, people do break them. However, far less people use firearms to break the law in Canada than in the US. Maybe it is because there are significantly less guns readily available, or maybe Canadians are just far less criminal or violent. (on a more serious note, the ready availability of ammunition plays a large role as well. As in, it isn't as easy to get in Canada)

You would think that in a free market environment there would be far less people willing to work for the military, which would ultimately result in required change. Change either in the form of conscription or better work benefits.

What do you think Obama should have done? STFU and Stop throwing stones in a green house... but I guess he knows what a proper invasion is Really? Most of the western world has condemned the actions of the Russians in Ukraine. You think nobody should have spoken up, or just Obama should have remained quiet?

What do you think Obama should have done?

Oh ok, business as usual then. Russia must be worried having troops without insignia all over their own neighbourhood then?Are certainly concerned. For these purposes the president got Federation Council approval. So it is Russian property. Russian soldiers are there, but it isn't an invasion. There are unidentified troops, welcomed by the pro-russian factions, that Russia is very worried about. You are going to have a fine future as information minister.

Oh ok, business as usual then. Russia must be worried having troops without insignia all over their own neighbourhood then?

No, I did not see Colin Powell in Ukraine, but I think you may have gone off the deep end. Colin Powell was used as a puppet and the US invaded Iraq under false pretense. Those facts don't take away that Russia has invaded Crimea though.

Plus we don't get to carry the guns around, nor are we allowed to leave them around the house. Plus, you have to be licensed to purchase a gun. Plus the far majority of the 11 million guns are long guns.

When I don't want an animal anymore, I can have it euthanized. Or, alternatively I can give it to local animal control/humane society and if they cannot find a quitable "home" within a very short time frame, they will euthanize it. When I can legally start doing that with human family members, your analogy makes sense.

not true As weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well, it is if we make the absolutely crazy assumption that the troops who are not wearing any insignia or identifying marks, but moving around in vehicles with Russian license plates are Russian.

Is there a need for this drug in palliative care? Or will it go the same route as Oxy? At first it wasn't prescribed as easily and quickly. Reserved for the more serious pain management issues. These days it seems like it is to the go to drug for prescription pain medication.